In a brief order issued this morning, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reconsider its decision earlier this year striking down Proposition 8, finding the 2008 law unconstitutional because it stripped gay and lesbian couples of the right to marry. The appeals court denied a request from Prop 8 backers to rehear the case with a special 11-judge panel. As a result, opponents of same-sex marriage will have to turn to the Supreme Court as the only chance of reviving California's ban on same-sex marriage.

However, same-sex couples will not be permitted to marry immediately in California, as the appeals court will give Prop 8 supporters time to appeal to the US Supreme Court. The Prop 8 folks have said they will take the case to the Supremes.

The 9th Circuit's order comes less than a week after a federal appeals court in Boston found the federal government's ban on same-sex marriage rights unconstitutional, thus heightening the prospect that the Supreme Court may have to consider both state and federal gay marriage restrictions next term.

FYI, the 9th Circuit has a special Prop 8 page on its website. The (popularly abbreviated :-) name of the case is Perry v. Brown.

The order contains a stay of 90 days to give the Prop 8 folks time - should they so desire - to file a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. If the Prop 8 folks take the case to SCOTUS, then the stay will remain in effect until final disposition by the Supreme Court.

In its order, the court simply said that the request for rehearing had failed to gain a majority vote among the court's 27 active judges. The court announces only the results of such votes on requests for rehearing and not the number of votes on each side.

Three judges dissented from the order. In their dissent, they noted that - in Obama's recent endorsement of the right of same-sex couples to marry - the President said that each state should make its own decision. The dissent, authored by Judge O'Scannlain and joined by Judges Bybee and Bea, is included in the order linked above.

In seeking a rehearing, Prop 8's sponsors - a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage - accused the court of maligning the motives of 7 million California voters and argued that the ballot measure promoted traditional marriage, moral values, and the interests of children. I think their petition for rehearing is included among the documents linked on the 9th Circuit's Prop 8 page (linked above).

In seeking a rehearing, Prop 8's sponsors - a conservative religious coalition called Protect Marriage - accused the court of maligning the motives of 7 million California voters and argued that the ballot measure promoted traditional marriage, moral values, and the interests of children.

How does one "promote traditional marriage", anyway? Do the hets now get a free toaster oven with every "opposite marriage"?

And how does denying equality for SOME citizens "promote ... moral values"? Newt Gingrich is "traditionally" married ... again, and I wouldn't view his character as having any moral values?

Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Brian Raum said Prop 8 backers “absolutely” would take the case to the Supreme Court now that the litigation has run its course at the court of appeals.

Raum said he expected to get a ruling from the Supreme Court sometime in the fall on whether it would take the case. He doesn't know whether the Prop 8 defense team will take the entire 90 days to get its writ petition to the Supreme Court.

Alliance Defense Fund lawyer Brian Raum said Prop 8 backers “absolutely” would take the case to the Supreme Court now that the litigation has run its course at the court of appeals.

Raum said he expected to get a ruling from the Supreme Court sometime in the fall on whether it would take the case. He doesn't know whether the Prop 8 defense team will take the entire 90 days to the Supreme Court.